In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. during bail proceedings, the High Court refused the prayed protection but directed that no coercive action be taken against applicants for 45 days to facilitate their bail appearance expeditiously.
No coercive action against applicants for 45 days pending bail application below.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 460 of 2007
Applicant :- Gulzar Singh And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vimlendu Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the order dated 07.05.2005 and proceedings of complaint case no. 4504 of 2003 (Baldev Singh Vs. Gulzar Singh and others), under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Banda, District -Shahjahanpur pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pyuwanya Shahjahanpur.
The learned counsel for the applicants after advancing his arguments at some length, gave up his challenge to the aforesaid impugned order dated 07.05.2005 against the applicants and requested to grant some protection, so that applicants may surrender before the court below. The learned counsel for the applicants further stated at the Bar that he is not pressing any other prayer made in this application and prayed that a direction be issued to the courts below to consider and decide the bail application of the applicants expeditiously in accordance with law.
In view of above, relief as claimed in the application is hereby refused . Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
However, considering the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicants, it is directed that in case applicants appear before the concerned court below within 45 days from today and apply for bail, the bail application of the applicants shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously by the courts below in accordance with settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2009) 4
Supreme Court Cases, 437 Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
For the period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
With the above observations, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.4.2019 AK Pandey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant protection to applicants pending bail hearing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether a prima facie case was made out for coercive action for 45 days against applicants.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P., 2005 Criminal Law Journal 755
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶9
(2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 437 Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gulzar Singh
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
AK Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
